Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brooks v. Zebre

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided May 17, 1990No. 88-263Published

1DissentUrbigkit, Justice

I regretfully but strongly dissent. The result of this holding permits predation by an attorney so long as the defrauded victim is not a client. I am unconvinced by the majority’s rationale that any other result would do “extreme violence to the adversarial process.” This fraud did not occur within the context of an adversarial process and I find such an explanation misplaced. It is non-adversarial if only one attorney directs the events. Flaherty v. Weinberg, 303 Md. 116, 492 A.2d 618 (1985).

John Arambel appeared to be close friends of Isaac and Patricia Brooks. The Arambels and the Brooks…

2Cases cited152 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Briscoe v. LaHueSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  5. Green Spring Farms v. KerstenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987

147 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API